Magorn:This always happens. COntrary to popular belief there is no legal "reporter's privilege" the way there is for doctors, lawyers, priests , spouses, therapists, etc. So what always happens is somebody get pissed over the leak, the reporter is pressed to reveal thier source, they refuse, a judge orders them to do it, they still refuse, they go to jail for contempt of court, much media hand-wringing ensues, at some point the judge realizes that the reporter is never going to comply, at which point they have the option of converting the case into a criminal contempt prosecution for which the reporter can get six months in jail, or letting the reporter go, which they invariably do. So why do it at all? Because A) the law says they have to, and B) a lot of times there is hope that seeing the reporter rot in jial puts pressure on the source to out themselves

You are slightly off, as with many issues like this the US, there is no federal shield law to protect reporters from having to give up the identity of their sources, however many states do. Colorado does have a shield law but from what I can tell it allows for Judges to compel reporters to give up the identity of their sources if they can be found through no other means. To me that sounds like it means this law is largely useless and based on the fact that this reporter is facing jail time supports that.

the.squid:Magorn: This always happens. COntrary to popular belief there is no legal "reporter's privilege" the way there is for doctors, lawyers, priests , spouses, therapists, etc. So what always happens is somebody get pissed over the leak, the reporter is pressed to reveal thier source, they refuse, a judge orders them to do it, they still refuse, they go to jail for contempt of court, much media hand-wringing ensues, at some point the judge realizes that the reporter is never going to comply, at which point they have the option of converting the case into a criminal contempt prosecution for which the reporter can get six months in jail, or letting the reporter go, which they invariably do. So why do it at all? Because A) the law says they have to, and B) a lot of times there is hope that seeing the reporter rot in jial puts pressure on the source to out themselves

You are slightly off, as with many issues like this the US, there is no federal shield law to protect reporters from having to give up the identity of their sources, however many states do. Colorado does have a shield law but from what I can tell it allows for Judges to compel reporters to give up the identity of their sources if they can be found through no other means. To me that sounds like it means this law is largely useless and based on the fact that this reporter is facing jail time supports that.

Colorado's shield law is a qualified privilege that sounds all nice and steadfast until you get to the qualifications. Reporters have no legal protection if:"(a) That the news information is directly relevant to a substantial issue involved in the proceedings;(b) That the news information cannot be obtained by any other reasonable means; and(c) That a strong interest of the party seeking to subpoena the news person outweighs the interests under the first amendment to the United States Constitution of such news person in not responding to a subpoena and of the general public in receiving news information."

From my perspective, (a) is applicable here, (b) hasn't been fully explored, and (c) is totally up the judge's discretion, rendering the shield law about as steadfast as a bowl of oatmeal.

randomjsa:Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

<strawman.jpg>

I didn't want reporters thrown in jail for the Plame leak. I wanted Cheney thrown in jail for it.

The guy who shot three cops dead in Pittsburgh because they were "coming to take his guns" had numerous right-wing screeds in his possession by such notable idiots as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Jared Lee Loughner, though fundamentally more insane than anything else, was clearly ininfluenced by a number of what are traditionally right-wing, anti-government conspiracy theories.

Jim David Adkisson explicitly went out looking to "kill liberals, African-Americans, homosexuals" and made a kill list based off of Bernard Goldberg's book "100 People Who are Screwing Up America".

Timothy McVeigh was a far right anti-government lunatic.

Wade Michael Page was a white supremacist.

I don't know if I'd say somethign as specific as mass killers are usually republicans, but there's a pretty clear correlation between conservative ideology (and especially far-right ideology) and violence against people. Crazy-ass left-wingers seem to be more intent with burning down property and smashing windows. Crazy-ass right-wingers seem to have an unfortunate tendency to prefer shooting people or blowing them up.

It's almost like when you have multiple fat farks on TV and radio all day long vilifying people they disagree with as subhuman and blaming all of the world's ills on those people that some of the less stable viewers and listeners might not react in the most level-headed and responsible way.

If only there were a historical precedent for that type of propaganda and its eventual outcomes that we could learn from....

Are you high, Mcveigh's motive was revenge for Weaver and Waco and notably absent from your list are all the left wing whacko killings, is the L broken in google search for you?

randomjsa:Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

Since Fark is a liberal hotbed, you can presumably find examples posts on Fark saying they should be imprisoned for contempt until they reveal their sources. (Only one-quarter credit if you can find them saying they should be imprisoned for blowing Plame's cover; that's separate from not revealing their sources.)

Incidentally, how much air-time has Fox News been giving this? Because, noble-sounding legal platitudes and crap about "facilitating open exchange of information and ideas" aside, that's the ultimate basis for the Journalist's Privilege: the longstanding editorial tradition that anyone daring to mess with the press gets the full, undivided, and openly hostile attention of the editors behind the journalist at whatever media outlet, in as big a typeface as the front page will hold (or TV equivalent). It also usually draws support from other media outlets on good terms... but that's pretty sparse, for Fox News.

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo:Counter_Intelligent: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

I disagree. This is a bed we'll all be forced to lie in, eventually, whether we support it or not.

I agree with your disagreement. Liberals should defend this reporter as a matter of principle.

As a matter of principle? Yeah, we should. Even though she works for a "news" organization that's really a puppet of the GOP, I wouldn't give them the damn satisfaction of crying victim by letting them twist in the wind.

Rwa2play:Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Counter_Intelligent: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

I disagree. This is a bed we'll all be forced to lie in, eventually, whether we support it or not.

I agree with your disagreement. Liberals should defend this reporter as a matter of principle.

As a matter of principle? Yeah, we should. Even though she works for a "news" organization that's really a puppet of the GOP, I wouldn't give them the damn satisfaction of crying victim by letting them twist in the wind.

They'll do it anyways because that's the way they work.

that's not why you should defend her. You really, really don't get it huh?Shocking.

Wasn't it a Libby-Libby Leftist at the Jew York Times who actually did get thrown in jail?

// OK, so Miller is not a "leftist", she just works at their HQ

You've already forgotten about her "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling? ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

No, I don't care about Miller's WMD shilling. I don't really care that she protected Scooter Libby's disclosure of classified information. The former is our fault for believing (and really, there were mounds of evidence to the contrary), the latter was Libby being hoist onto his own sword.

Judith Miller went to jail to protect her source, and The Left, as I recall, was pissed that she was in jail at all.

Reporters don't have some sort of first amendment right to keep their sources confidential, nor do they (or should they) have immunity from subpoena. Even information that is confidential under most circumstances (such as medical records) is subject to subpoena.

Reporters do have the same option as any other citizen--to refuse to comply with the subpoena (which is Latin for "under penalty"), and take the consequences. In her case, consequences are likely to be incarceration until the end of the trial, at which point the information is no longer of any value.

skullkrusher:Rwa2play: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Counter_Intelligent: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

I disagree. This is a bed we'll all be forced to lie in, eventually, whether we support it or not.

I agree with your disagreement. Liberals should defend this reporter as a matter of principle.

As a matter of principle? Yeah, we should. Even though she works for a "news" organization that's really a puppet of the GOP, I wouldn't give them the damn satisfaction of crying victim by letting them twist in the wind.

They'll do it anyways because that's the way they work.

that's not why you should defend her. You really, really don't get it huh?Shocking.

You mean the whole "freedom of the press" thingie? I thought that was a given.

skullkrusher:CheatCommando: This text is now purple: I'm sure all judges have dirty laundry, and motivated news rooms can make for difficult opponents.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Going after a judge will negatively effect the stock price. Won't happen.

why would it do that? The ZOG? Illuminati connections of the judge? Trying to understand the mechanism here.

You think that judge doesn't have friends, especially if he has the "dirty laundry" you are positing? News organizations are not about news - they are about steady profits for the shareholders. That's why we see nothing about oil spills and the like and plenty of stories about Justin Bieber's monkey.

Investigative journalism is high risk with little reward - you will only see it when an ideological enemy can be targeted, and even then it can blow up in your face. Ask Dan Rather, who as it turns out, was correct about Shrub's military service.

The guy who shot three cops dead in Pittsburgh because they were "coming to take his guns" had numerous right-wing screeds in his possession by such notable idiots as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Jared Lee Loughner, though fundamentally more insane than anything else, was clearly ininfluenced by a number of what are traditionally right-wing, anti-government conspiracy theories.

Jim David Adkisson explicitly went out looking to "kill liberals, African-Americans, homosexuals" and made a kill list based off of Bernard Goldberg's book "100 People Who are Screwing Up America".

Timothy McVeigh was a far right anti-government lunatic.

Wade Michael Page was a white supremacist.

I don't know if I'd say somethign as specific as mass killers are usually republicans, but there's a pretty clear correlation between conservative ideology (and especially far-right ideology) and violence against people. Crazy-ass left-wingers seem to be more intent with burning down property and smashing windows. Crazy-ass right-wingers seem to have an unfortunate tendency to prefer shooting people or blowing them up.

It's almost like when you have multiple fat farks on TV and radio all day long vilifying people they disagree with as subhuman and blaming all of the world's ills on those people that some of the less stable viewers and listeners might not react in the most level-headed and responsible way.

If only there were a historical precedent for that type of propaganda and its eventual outcomes that we could learn from....

All (or nearly all?) of the militia groups are right wingers. I'm pretty sure the closest thing we have to a radical/violent left these days would be some of the PETA type animal rights people.

RE the mass killers, the fear, paranoia, and xenophobia that are standard talking points on the right are very attractive to people who already lost their marbles. I'd say corelation and causation are up for debate on that one.

Rwa2play:skullkrusher: Rwa2play: Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: Counter_Intelligent: MyKingdomForYourHorse: You sort of created your own bed Fox, time to lie in it

I disagree. This is a bed we'll all be forced to lie in, eventually, whether we support it or not.

I agree with your disagreement. Liberals should defend this reporter as a matter of principle.

As a matter of principle? Yeah, we should. Even though she works for a "news" organization that's really a puppet of the GOP, I wouldn't give them the damn satisfaction of crying victim by letting them twist in the wind.

They'll do it anyways because that's the way they work.

that's not why you should defend her. You really, really don't get it huh?Shocking.

You mean the whole "freedom of the press" thingie? I thought that was a given.

CheatCommando:skullkrusher: CheatCommando: This text is now purple: I'm sure all judges have dirty laundry, and motivated news rooms can make for difficult opponents.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Going after a judge will negatively effect the stock price. Won't happen.

why would it do that? The ZOG? Illuminati connections of the judge? Trying to understand the mechanism here.

You think that judge doesn't have friends, especially if he has the "dirty laundry" you are positing? News organizations are not about news - they are about steady profits for the shareholders. That's why we see nothing about oil spills and the like and plenty of stories about Justin Bieber's monkey.

Investigative journalism is high risk with little reward - you will only see it when an ideological enemy can be targeted, and even then it can blow up in your face. Ask Dan Rather, who as it turns out, was correct about Shrub's military service.

scandal sells. Judge Dumdum calling whoever he might know is not going to impact News Corps shareprice. Getting a shiatton of page clicks, NY Post sells, etc because they're finding dead girls/live boys in his bed as a result of their vendetta against him to retaliate for violating a reporter's constitutional rights? Yep, that's good for business.

randomjsa:Liberals were perfectly willing to throw reporters in prison during the Valerie Plame incident. The right of reporters to protect their sources was cast right out the damn window by the ardent free press supporters known as liberals.

So the rest of that headline is "...the reporter doesn't have information that can be used against a Republican"

Still waiting for Cheney and Rove to face Treason charges over that incident.

Rwa2play:Maybe it's because the judge placed a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case to blab and it's clear she got her scoops from someone associated with the case?

Crazy talk and all but...

You should read up on colorado shield laws before looking like an idiot. She can't be put in jail unless it is critical to the trial. She did not violate the order. Knowing who leaked is not vital to the outcome of the trial.

CheatCommando:skullkrusher: CheatCommando: This text is now purple: I'm sure all judges have dirty laundry, and motivated news rooms can make for difficult opponents.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Going after a judge will negatively effect the stock price. Won't happen.

why would it do that? The ZOG? Illuminati connections of the judge? Trying to understand the mechanism here.

You think that judge doesn't have friends, especially if he has the "dirty laundry" you are positing? News organizations are not about news - they are about steady profits for the shareholders. That's why we see nothing about oil spills and the like and plenty of stories about Justin Bieber's monkey.

Investigative journalism is high risk with little reward - you will only see it when an ideological enemy can be targeted, and even then it can blow up in your face. Ask Dan Rather, who as it turns out, was correct about Shrub's military service.

I can tell you that the judge in this case is just a judge in the 18th judicial district. He is not magical, nor is he a god. You however, are a goddamned idiot.

It seems like this isn't in much of the news because it isn't very interesting. Reporters can be compelled to give up their sources. This reporter is being compelled and is willing to take the punishment for refusing. It's really more of a "dog bites man" kind of story.

Parthenogenetic:You've already forgotten about her "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling? ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

MindStalker:This is why we have whistleblower protection laws (yes that are rarely followed). If you illegally obtain information and post it to the public, lets say I hacked someone's medical information and posted it online, that is breaking the law. You can't just claim that you are a reporter and suddenly its alright. Your actions need to serve the public good and there needs to be a reason you blew the whistle. This reporter has neither.

Some things I thought of from your response:

-Serving the public good is an arbitrary phrase.-You don't think this reporter was serving the public good?-If there is a case of illegally obtaining information, make the case and charge them for that act. If a window's broke, dust for fingerprints. If you can't get any evidence, don't bring up a charge. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Mega Steve:Parthenogenetic: You've already forgotten about her "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling? ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

Mega Steve:Parthenogenetic: You've already forgotten about her "OMG Iraq has WMDs!!!!" shilling? ("Look, even the Jew York Times admits Saddam could wipe out every man, woman, child, and puppy in America in 45 minutes!")

skullkrusher:" Not as many people care about this as much as they ought to, which is one of the consequences of working for a nakedly partisan shiatshow masquerading as news outlet."

Perhaps if you're a child this is true.No work on whether Gawker doesn't find Gawker to be a partisan shiatshow masquerading as a news outlet

Gawker and Fox are both shiatshows, but fox is the only one masquerading as journalism. Everyone already knows that Gawker is not much more than a liberal blog trying really hard to wish they could masquerade as journalists.

However, if you aren't willing to admit that fox is pure bullshiat, then you sir are a fool without equal.

Rwa2play:Maybe it's because the judge placed a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case to blab and it's clear she got her scoops from someone associated with the case?

Crazy talk and all but...

Yes, whoever blabbed clearly deserves jail time for violating the gag order. What does that have to do with this reporter? I'm all for busting the people who blabbed. I'm all for asking the reporter very nicely to reveal her sources. But once you start forcing reporters to reveal their sources, then people stop telling things to reporters. So then the public gets less information.

The first amendment exists for a very specific and extremely important reason. This practice directly attacks and undermines that reason.

skullkrusher:No work on whether Gawker doesn't find Gawker to be a partisan shiatshow masquerading as a news outlet

Since when has Gawker ever pretended to be anything but a liberal blog/gossip site? Sites like Gawker aren't intended to be dispassionate purveyors of current events. Traditional networks like Fox who use "News" in their title are. It's why one of these things is worse than the other.